Glyphosate/Roundup in Cheerios?! Who Knew?
8 years ago
Featured Answer
Sort by:Oldest
Comments (27)
8 years agoRelated Discussions
abc News - Original Cheerios to Go GMO-Free
Comments (19)USA Today just came out with a slightly different twist in their handling the story. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/01/03/gmo-genetically-modified-organism-facts-cheerios/4302121/ Of particular interest: " FDA is considering two citizen petitions it has received asking the agency to require GMO labeling." And "Why are some people concerned about GMOs? Critics say there are potential health effects (see next question) and environmental concerns surrounding GMOs. One of the supposed benefits of GMOs is that they should result in less herbicide spraying, since some plants have been modified to be herbicide resistant. However, over-reliance on these crops has led to the emergence of "super weeds" that are also more resistant to herbicides, requiring increased spraying, according to a University of Washington study." H.Kuska comment: the U. of Washington study link was given. It is: http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/summary-of-major-findings-and-definitions-of-important-terms/ Of particular interest, to me, is the following: "Today’s major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops." And The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn." H.Kuska comment: I could actually cut and paste much of the article, but instead I will simply suggest that everyone read the complete article. However, I will put the conclusion here: "Much new research will be required to translate emerging data on higher exposures to glyphosate and Bt toxins into estimates of human, farm and companion animal, and environmental risks." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H.Kuska further comment: I feel that the above conclusion is consistent with my personel conclusion that scientists who are opposed to their being GMOs in our food supply generally are opposed to using the general population as beta testers ( beta testers is my term - long term safety studies are still needed is a more common statement). The main concern, as I see it, is what will happen if we are exposed to a continual diet of GMOs for an extended period. Normally included in statements like this is that each type of GMO has to be certified individually. ----------------------------------- 2013 scientific review: Title: "Food health quality of genetically modified crops ��" review of risks and benefits" "However, genetically modified organism are relatively new, as they appeared commercially in the mid 90’s and are poorly addressed by current testing methods [51]. That is why, there is a need for further discussions on risks and benefits of GM crops not only in terms of health, but also in terms of the environmental and socio-economic effects. To obtain more valuable results, the presented factors must be also evaluated in terms of their relative importance under specific conditions. For example, in poor and malnourished societies, “improved nutrition” and “food availability” may be considered a more important aspect of health sustainability than “changes in level of natural toxins” in plants, whereas in rich societies, this relation is likely to be the opposite. A major limitation of this review is the availability of the existing studies, showing results that were often conflicting and rooted in speculations. Thus, further research is needed to obtain more consistent outcome." http://mil-pharm-med.pl/2013/2-6/3.pdf Here is a link that might be useful: USA Today version of story...See MorePlease explain something about GMO, RoundUp etc to this lurker.
Comments (52)""Decreasing competition from weeds (nutrients, moisture or sunlight) increases crop yields everything else being equal. RR plants allow a producer to control a broad spectrum of weeds with a single pass thus decreasing input costs, increasing profits and making the farm more efficient. This is basic agriculture 101 that a twelve year old farm kid learns." " Some weeds like Dandelion, Yellow Dock, ragweed, etc., etc., tap into minerals and water reservoirs to bring nutrients to the top to other vegetables and killing them is dumb anyways. Poison the ground for something you need anyways is what you'll be doing and spending tons to give the plants alternatives to what these companion plants have to give. They did a study where planting corn with one type of weed, can't remember which one maybe ragweed, made the corn grow better without need of as much fertilizers, but of course some of the room to plant will be taken over by the weeds. You have to give to receive, so in an organic garden, you get a little more of everything, but not great amounts per acre of one thing unless you have stacked raised beds like the pyramid type of beds that go up to 5 levels high making the most out of a small space. It's the only guarantee. Weeds are not necessarily a good thing, but if they attract beneficial insects, which is the only cure for some types of bug infestations resistant, like the squash vine borer or others like it, you will use more space planting the plant that helps attract the beneficials and get less yields, but better than no yields from the infestation....See MoreSprayed roundup weed killer
Comments (58)Yowza!!! The only statement that approaches any degree of accuracy in the above post is the one that suggests you do the research. Which the above poster has obviously not done. "Ask yourself basic logical questions like, how in the world can a toxic chemical intuitively know not to poison your tomato or your dog, but to target that bad dandelion only (for example)." The answer to that is simple and is the same principle behind the development of beneficial pharmaceuticals that target disease organisms. It's called 'mode of action' - glyphosate's mode of action is to disrupt a metabolic pathway that allows for the biosynthesis of certain amino acids. This metabolic pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is specific to plants and some microorganisms. The absence of this pathway in mammals explains the low toxicity of glyphosate to non-target organisms. "It is extremely hazardous, and it is toxic to all life" Again, a completely erroneous statement. After some 40 years of the most extensive scientific testing any pesticide has ever undergone, glyphosate is considered to be of very low toxicity and therefore is NOT considered to be "extremely hazardous". And it is obviously not "toxic to all life" - it just simply does not work that way (see above re: mode of action) and if it did, it would not be on the market. And the declaration that it is a causation for cancer is still under debate by world health authorities. First, it has never been documented that gylphosate is carcinogenic with humans - that's probably the major bone of contention with this assessment. The association was made based on very limited epidemiological studies which have been disputed by non-consistent patterns of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate. The bulk of the determination was based on studies based on animal experiments submitted by the producers of glyphosate as evidence for the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate. And these findings were considered by various other agencies involved in this assessment (IMPR, FAO/WHO) who concluded that “In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting (IMPR) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” (does glyphosate cause cancer?) Finally, had the above poster done her research, she would be aware that glyphosate is a non-specific herbicide. It does not just target weeds nor was it intended to just target weeds. This is a basic premise of any understanding of herbicides and to bother to post without knowing this elementary fact gives no credence to the rest of her rant. Junk science will always be junk science and simply spewing back sensationalized conclusions plucked from the online press without knowledge or understanding is merely ignorant fear mongering....See MoreJust how safe is Roundup?
Comments (33)About as safe as plutonium. Why anyone would even consider such a thing is mindboggling. FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (6-7-11) Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday. The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals. But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public. Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects. The report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops. In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders." Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030. "Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual. "They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards." Here is a link that might be useful: RoundupandBirthDefects...See More
8 years ago
8 years ago
PRO8 years ago
8 years agoYes, I posted about this awhile back...along with this chart. Frightening stuff. It's one reason we make our own graham crackers and whole wheat bread out of organic flour now.
- 8 years ago
- 8 years ago
- 8 years agolast modified: 8 years ago
- 8 years ago
- 8 years ago
- 8 years ago
Related Stories
GARDENING GUIDESGreat Design Plant: Meadow Blazing Star (Liatris Ligulistylis)
Make fast friends with the monarch butterflies and get a color show too with this adaptable U.S. Midwest native
Full Story
GARDENING GUIDESMake Sure You Read This Before Buying New Plants
Follow these 10 plant-selection tips to avoid buyer’s remorse
Full Story
FARM YOUR YARDHow to Build a Raised Bed for Your Veggies and Plants
Whether you’re farming your parking strip or beautifying your backyard, a planting box you make yourself can come in mighty handy
Full Story
beesneeds